Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

"The Nation" sportswriter blames Israel for US police brutality

We've already seen how Dave Zirin, "sports writer" for The Nation who has a special obsession with Israel, disregards facts that get in the way of his hate. And how The Nation has no interest in correcting his egregious and provable lies.

He's at it again. This time he is so incensed that some NBA players are visiting Israel that he is telling them that Israel is responsible for every time a black person is assaulted or killed by an American cop.

Yes, really.

On December 12, you were one of several Sacramento Kings players to wear an “I Can’t Breathe” shirt during warm-ups. The shirts were worn to commemorate the last words of Staten Island’s Eric Garner and protest his death at the hands of the New York Police Department. It was a brave act, a link in a chain, which aligned some of the NBA’s biggest stars with the #BlackLivesMatter movement.

Of course, lethal police brutality has been directed at black Americans for as long as there have been police. But the #BlackLivesMatter movement has emerged out of a dramatic spike in this violence. Roughly 400 people were shot and killed by police over the first five months of 2015, according to a Washington Post analysis. That is more than twice the average of the past decade. Those killed are primarily black and brown, as police departments have outfitted themselves in military fashion. Finding justice for those killed has proven to be a near impossible task.

This epidemic of killings has been aggravated by the influence of Israeli police practices on US policing. Since 9/11, police chiefs and high-ranking officers from across the United States—from Ferguson to New York City—have traveled to Israel for training in the arts of suppression. As Ali Winston reported, “[a]t least 300” chiefs from across the country have gone to Israel for these workshops. Former US Capitol Police Chief Terrance W. Gainer called Israel “the Harvard of antiterrorism” after one all-expenses-paid trip. The NYPD, which took the life of Eric Garner and broke the leg of NBA player Thabo Sefolosha, now has an office in Tel Aviv.

Since 9/11, Israel has turned its repressive capabilities into an exportable commodity. It instructs on surveillance, crowd control tactics, and psychological operations like keeping lights on police cars at all times.

Zirin is not the first idiot to make this argument. Rania Khalek did the same in May, and I demolished it then:

First of all, the programs that Khalek highlights are not for riot control. One of them mentions a demonstration of "crowd control" during a terror attack - not a training session - but most of the training was for counterterrorism techniques such as intelligence gathering and operations to capture terrorists before they begin their operations; border security, mechanisms to delay terrorists on their way to a target such as checkpoints; and site security - the protection of the restaurants, shopping malls and buses that are the preferred terrorist targets, preventing bombings, securing airports and border crossings and performing mass rescue operations.

Secondly, even if Israel did offer training in riot control, it is up to individual police departments to decide on their techniques. They wouldn't photocopy Israel's manual for riot control. They take the lessons that they like and incorporate them into their own programs. One has to be thoroughly consumed with hate in order to blame Japan if someone kills another with a karate kick. (In fact, I am very surprised that Khalek didn't notice that the Baltimore police offers krav maga seminars. )

(For those interested, here is a blog post from someone who took Baltimore cop riot training in 2000, with a comment from someone who took it in 2008. Nothing about Israel, of course. )

According to Khalek's moronic logic, there is another organization responsible for Baltimore police actions:

The United Nations.

Yes, the UN offers police commander training, and one of the sessions was attended by a major in the Baltimore Police Department. Clearly the UN is culpable for the Baltimore riots.

Do you hear how stupid that sounds?

That is how stupid Rania Khalek's argument, the same argument used by other Israel haters, is.

But it isn't stupidity that animates Khalek's half-baked theories. It is pure hate.

The Electronic Intifada readers who buy this argument, however, are truly stupid.

The same goes for readers of The Nation who buy this garbage.

Zirin also mentions that Israeli police used tear gas against Ethiopian protesters, not mentioning that the response was only to those who were throwing bottles and bricks while trying to storm a police headquarters. He of course didn't mention that subsequent rallies by Ethiopian Jews who were rightly protesting discrimination were successful and changes are being made including Israeli police promising to hire more Ethiopian Jews. But that doesn't fit Zirin's narrative of racist Israelis.

The only person filled with hate here is Zirin. But blind, irrational, hate against Israelis is perfectly OK for people who pretend they are against blind, irrational hate.

“This weekend the ALP [Australian Labor Party, led by Bill Shorten] will hold its 47th National Conference in Melbourne. As the highest decision-making forum of the ALP, the conference will set the content and tone for a raft of key Labor policies for the next three years. One of the most hotly contested issues to be addressed is whether to recognise the state of Palestine…. Last year the British Labour Party – along with the rest of the British parliament – voted to recognise Palestinian statehood. It is time for the Australian Labor Party to follow suit.”

So ran, inter alia, an op-ed last week on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s (ABC’s) Religion and Ethics site by postgraduate (“graduate student” in American terminology) Paul Duffill of the University of Sydney’s Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies. (http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2015/07/23/4279347.htm)

Voilà! Swift to lend his support to Duffill’s article was the Centre’s director, Associate Professor Jake Lynch, who added a nasty little augmentation:

“Another form of necessary pressure can be exerted from outside governments and governing parties such as Labor, by joining the growing worldwide campaign for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. Hence CPACS' [the Centre’s] response to the call for the academic boycott, by withdrawing cooperation from institutional links with Israeli universities. That, too, is not an alternative to dialogue as often misleadingly claimed, but conceived in order to bring about propitious conditions for it.”

Sounds like gun-to-the-head enforcement to me. But I digress.

The ALP conference meets every three years and decides on party policy, at least nominally. The ALP is dominated by factions – a byzantine and complicated situation – and the resolution that was due for debate on Sunday, 26 July, spearheaded by New South Wales right-wing powerbroker Tony Burke in consultation with the party’s shadow foreign affairs minister (since 2013) Tanya Plibersek – a Left faction member who in 2002 infamously said “I can think of a rogue state which consistently ignores UN resolutions whose ruler is a war criminal: it is called Israel and the war criminal is Ariel Sharon. Needless to say, the US does not mention the UN resolutions that Israel has ignored for 30 years; it just continues sending the money”) – was supported by both the left and right factions of the party in New South Wales. But it was staunchly opposed by the party’s right faction in Victoria, a faction which includes such prominent pro-Israel Jews as Michael Danby and shadow attorney-general Mark Dreyfus.

Reported the ABC’s political editor Chris Uhlmann last week (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-23/alp-conference-matters-more-than-most-chris-uhlmann/6642366):

‘In 2014, NSW Labor [on Burke’s initiative] adopted a resolution on recognising a Palestinian state.

It said that if "there is no progress to a two-state solution, and Israel continues to build and expand settlements, a future Labor government will consult like-minded nations towards recognition of the Palestinian state". It might seem like a small step, but it is a big deal for some and is furiously opposed by the diminishing band of ardently pro-Israel Labor MPs and senators. Expect a similar resolution to be debated, and probably passed, at the conference. What is intriguing about this fight is that it is not a Left-Right divide. It is a NSW resolution, supported by both factions in that state. It will be vigorously opposed by the Victorian Right, which happens to be Mr Shorten's power base. One side-effect of Labor's growing embrace of a Palestinian state is that it is losing donations and support from the Jewish lobby, a group that once staunchly backed Labor.’

In fact, there was, at the conference on 26 July, a somewhat watered down version of what was expected. As summarised by Sky News:

‘A future federal Labor government would consider recognising a Palestinian state if there was no progress in the next round of the Middle East peace process. Labor factions reached a deal at the ALP national conference on Sunday on the wording of a resolution on the issue, but ditched making a formal change to its policy platform…

The motion was carried with applause.

It recognises that any resolution of the situation should be based on 1967 borders with agreed land swaps, a timeframe to end Israeli occupation, demilitarisation of Palestinian territory, agreement on a solution to Palestinian refugee issues and resolution of the issue of Jerusalem's final status.

It also recognises settlement building by Israel in the Occupied Territories may undermine a two-state solution and calls for Israel to stop all such settlement expansion to support renewed negotiations toward peace.

The conference rejected the boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel.

Ultimately, the motion was a compromise in the wake of the Left and Right factions putting up separate resolutions.’

Proposed by Tony Burke, and seconded by Queensland delegate Wendy Turner, the resolution goes as follows:

“The Australian Labor Party Conference:

Affirms Labor’s support for an enduring and just two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, based on the right of Israel to live in peace within secure borders internationally recognised and agreed by the parties, and reflecting the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people to also live in peace and security within their own state.

Deplores the tragic conflict in Gaza and supports an end to rocket attacks by Hamas and the exercise of the maximum possible restraint by Israel in response to these attacks.

Supports a negotiated settlement between the parties to the conflict, based on international frameworks, laws and norms

Recognises in government Labor retained its commitment to two states for two peoples in the Middle East and specifically

Did not block enhanced Palestinian status in the General Assembly;

Restated the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, is occupied territory;

Opposed Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian land, recognising that a just, peaceful and enduring resolution will involve a territorial settlement based on 1967 borders with agreed land swaps;

Held that the settlements are illegal under international law.

Recognises that any resolution will be based on 1967 borders with agreed land swaps, a timeframe to end Israeli occupation, demilitarization of Palestinian territory, agreement on a solution to Palestinian refugee issues, and resolution of the issue of Jerusalem’s final status.

Recognises that settlement building by Israel in the Occupied Territories that may undermine a two-state solution is a roadblock to peace. Labor calls on Israel to cease all such settlement expansion to support renewed negotiations toward peace.

Rejects the boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel.

Condemns the comments of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu during the recent elections where he ruled out a Palestinian state and further condemns his appeals to race during the campaign.

Recognises a lasting peace will require a future State of Palestine to recognise the right of Israel to exist and the State of Israel to recognise the right of Palestine to exist.

Recognises the special circumstances of the Palestinian people, their desire for respect, and the achievement of their legitimate aspiration to live in independence in a state of their own. This is a cause Labor is committed to.

If however there is no progress in the next round of the peace process a future Labor government will discuss joining like-minded nations who have already recognised Palestine and announcing the conditions and timelines for the Australian recognition of a Palestinian state, with the objective of contributing to peace and security in the Middle East.”

No joy for Lynch and his fellow BDSers, then. Still, it was enough for The Guardian Australia in its live coverage to bleat:

“A decision by a small bloc of the right in Queensland to vote with the left on the recognition of Palestine undercut a carefully calibrated deal on a platform amendment struck between the NSW right and the Victorian right.

The end result was the Labor conference passed its strongest ever motion on the recognition of Palestine.”

And of course there is a sidelight on this issue which does not reflect well on the ALP – the latest outbursts concerning "the Israel lobby and its quite objectionable control over Australian policy" by former Australian foreign minister Bob Carr, of the New South Wales right faction, whose speech a fortnight ago at the Australian National University (ANU), co-hosted by the Centre for Arabic and Islamic Studies, Australians for Justice and Peace in Palestine (AJPP) and Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) – the latter two being virulently anti-Israel – has been described and roundly condemned by, among others, an ANU professor present who noted Carr’s “demeaning and scoffing at members of the Jewish community” who are active on Israel’s behalf: ‘His tone, focus and implication was that the activity of those people meeting and lobbying the government of the day was "disproportionate" and improper”…’ : see AIJAC’s report at http://www.aijac.org.au/news/article/carr-s-offensive-anu-speech

By the way, I was amazed to see, on the multicultural SBS (Special Broadcasting Service) website, “Palestine” listed as the second item on “key issues” to be considered by the ALP conference, along with, in numerical order, asylum seekers, climate, same sex marriage, party reform, gas reservation, China free trade agreement, and Socialist objective. No mention of what should be one of the key issues confronting any Australian party at the present time, especially a party of the left like the ALP: housing affordability. For in this country’s capital cities, particularly Sydney and Melbourne, house prices have skyrocketed to shocking levels unimaginable even a decade ago. This national scandal has been exacerbated by overseas buyers outbidding locals, and has condemned countless people to perhaps an entire lifetime of renting – this in a country in which short-term leases of six months to one year are the norm, where renters have few rights, and where a tight, unregulated private rental market is a landlord’s paradise. The situation is reaching tinderbox proportions, but none of the established parties appears interested in addressing it – presumably because politicians across the political spectrum are property-owners themselves and are delighted to see house prices climbing inexorably.

It is precisely this disgraceful situation – one of immense distress to an entire generation of young people, which is bifurcating Australia into a society of “haves” and “have nots’ as never before – that should be high on the agenda of the ALP. Not the status of Palestine, and certainly not awarding statehood without due negotiation with Israel to recalcitrant Palestinians.

07/28 Links Pt1: Overwhelming Israeli Opposition Strongest Sign Iran Deal Is A Bad One

From Ian:

Overwhelming Israeli Opposition Strongest Sign Iran Deal Is A Bad One

No country has more to lose from a military confrontation with Iran than Israel — and no country has more to gain than Israel from a peaceful resolution of the Iranian nuclear issue.
And yet, an overwhelming majority in the Jewish State views the Iran deal as a catastrophic mistake, one that potentially threatens the country’s very existence. This reality alone should make you think twice about the Obama administration’s claim that it negotiated a strong deal to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
Critics of Israel’s position on the Iran deal are often quick to paint Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a warmonger. But why would Netanyahu be anxious for a military confrontation? Israel would likely be the main target of any Iranian response to a strike on its nuclear program, even if the attack was conducted by the United States. With Iran’s terror proxy Hezbollah armed with an estimated 100,000 rockets in southern Lebanon, the consequences of an Iranian retaliation could be very grave for the Jewish State.
Conversely, Israel would benefit most from a deal with Iran that actually prevented the Islamic Republic from being able to obtain nuclear weapons capability. A good deal would eliminate the threat of an apocalyptically anti-Semitic regime being able to gain the means to make its genocidal dreams a reality. At the same time, a good deal would remove the need for a possible military attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities that could precipitate a bloody confrontation between Israel and Iran’s terror proxy Hezbollah.

Jennifer Rubin: Blaming failure of a rotten deal on Israel?!

Kerry does not “fear” Israel would be blamed; he is threatening to blame Israel if U.S. lawmakers decide that the deal is not in the interests of the United States. Not only is he inciting anti-Israel fervor, but he also is repeating another canard, namely that Israel controls Congress. In doing all this, the administration echoes ancient tropes against the Jews and not-so-ancient ones against an Israeli government that won’t meekly assent to its death.
The administration sounds more unhinged with each passing day, no doubt because it is not convincing Democrats to stand with the White House in defense of a rotten deal. In particular, many lawmakers who insisted on disclosure of the possible military dimensions (PMDs) of Iran’s nuclear program are learning it won’t be in the dealIn other words, the administration caved on PMDs and the deal would go into effect without ever forcing Iran to disclose information necessary to conduct adequate inspections. (“Outside nuclear experts said understanding Iran’s past nuclear work was critical to verifying the new agreement because it establishes a baseline for what Tehran has done in the past.”) Democrats who insisted on a credible inspection process and know that it depends on our understanding of Iran’s past nuclear weapons program have a choice: Cave (as the president did, thereby sacrificing their own credibility) or insist the president go back (with additional leverage in the form of new sanctions) to obtain what Kerry once promised he would get.
No wonder the administration is throwing a fit, louder and more overtly anti-Israel with each passing day. The president and his advisers desperately want to divert attention from their own grossly defective deal — and blame Israel if it fails. Nothing could be more revealing of the deal’s weakness and the Obama administration’s hostility to Israel than the manner in which it is defending the deal.

Can @TheTimes cite examples of Bibi saying he ‘opposed’ Iran negotiations? #IranDeal

In a July 28th article (Huckabee likens Iran deal to Holocaust), Times of London Middle East reporter Hugh Tomlinson claimed that Israel’s prime minister not only opposes the current Iran nuclear deal, but actually has opposed negotiations with Iran altogether.
Here’s the relevant passage, in the penultimate paragraph of the article.
Congress has two months in which to review the Vienna accord before voting to accept or reject it. Israel, which bitterly opposed negotiations with Iran from the outset, has been lobbying Congress for months in an attempt to block the deal.
Given that serious negotiations with Iran date back to 2009, Tomlinson is in effect saying that Binyamin Netanyahu has “bitterly opposed negotiations with Iran from the outset”. Indeed, Tomlinson has made this same claim on at least one other occasion.
However, as CAMERA has demonstrated, despite some media claims echoing Tomlinson’s take on Netanyahu’s position, the fact is that the prime minister has consistently supported negotiations with Iran, albeit one which achieved ‘a better deal’ than the one the six world powers have been prepared to accept.

A Washington Official, and the Washington Post, Fabricate Israeli Praise for the Iran Deal

The Post's headline promises a discussion of Israelis who feel the deal is "good" for their country. And the article goes on to name four prominent Israeli security experts. The message for readers, then, is that even if Israel's government and the largest opposition party are united against the deal — an inconvenient reality for the deal's advocates in the American government and the media, who normally can find allies among Israeli politicians who are so often at each other's throats — at least those in the know understand how truly good the agreement is.
Except it isn't true. Let's look at the security experts named in the piece:
Tharoor first mentions Ami Ayalon, a former head of the Shin Bet, Israel's internal security service, and links to a Daily Beast piece entitled "Ex-Intel Chief: Iran Deal Good for Israel."
Unfortunately for Tharoor (and for Daily Beast commentator Jonathan Alter), Ayalon, who begrudgingly supports the deal because it is "the best plan currently on the table" and because he believes there are no available alternatives, nonetheless has said in no uncertain terms, "I think the deal is bad. It's not good."
Tharoor then cites former intelligence chief Efraim Halevy, but strangely links to an Op-Ed Halevy wrote after a framework agreement was finalized in Lausanne last April but before the details of this final deal were agreed upon in Vienna this month. In a more recent (and thus relevant) Op-Ed, Halevy described what he sees as several strong points in the agreement and concludes that it is "important to hold a profound debate in Israel on whether no agreement is preferable to an agreement which includes components that are crucial for Israel's security."
He didn't explicitly state which side of the debate he favors, although there is a sense that leans toward the idea that Israel must get behind the deal. But like Ayalon, his tepid defense of the deal, if it is even that, seems to hinge on the idea that this agreement makes the emergence of any other, better deals unrealistic. "There will be no other agreement and no other negotiations," Halevy says in his recent Op-Ed.

The statement by the UNSCO in response to Israel's stopping an anti-Jewish riot (which is being condemned in all Arab capitals) on Tisha B'Av is a masterpiece of diplomatic doublespeak:

Following tensions and incidents in the Old City of Jerusalem over recent days, resulting in a number of injuries and arrests, the United Nations Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, Mr. Nickolay Mladenov, made the following statement:

I am concerned by recent incidents and heightened tensions in and around the Holy Sites of the Old City of Jerusalem and call upon people on all sides to maintain calm. Provocative actions and language carry the seed of violence and ultimately undermine the ability of worshippers of all faiths to have access to their respective Holy Sites. Respect for the status quo is in the interest of all and is essential for stability.

I call upon all religious and political leaders to prevent extremist elements from abusing the sanctity of Holy Sites and the different religious sentiments of all people.

It sounds even handed - but it isn't.

First of all, he calls for the maintenance of a status quo that is undeniably biased against the religious rights of Jews to pray on their holiest site. His mentioning "ability of worshippers of all faiths to have access to their respective Holy Sites" together with that statement means that to him, the Temple Mount is not a Jewish holy site but a Muslim one (or else the word "respectively" makes no sense.)

His timing of the statement after Israeli police stopped a major attack shows that to the UN, only Muslim religious rights are sacred. When he calls to prevent "extremist elements from abusing the sanctity of Holy Sites and the different religious sentiments of all people" he is not referring to the masses of Muslims who regularly and proudly harass Jews who come to the site daily, but the Jews themselves whose very presence there gives them the epithet "extremists."

Yes, the one woman who called Mohammed a pig after enduring a half hour of Muslim abuse could possibly be called an "extremist." But Mladenov is using the word in plural, meaning that he accepts the Arab narrative that all Jews who assert their religious rights should be dismissed as extremists.

So while the statement pretends to be directed at no one in particular, it is obvious from the timing, the context and the mention of the "status quo" that the UN is blaming only one side for the clashes and wants to keep the Temple Mount Judenrein.

There is an implied insult to Muslims here as well, since it is obvious that Muslim authorities cannot and do not want to curtail their extremists. Therefore his call to prevent extremists from acting is directed only at Israel. Meaning that it is obvious to him that for Muslims, incitement and extremism is the norm, and only Jews have the ability to reason with and stop their "extremists."

His pretense of even-handedness falls apart with only a little analysis, and no Muslims are upset at his statement because no one thinks it is directed at them.

There have been stories going around Saudi media about sexual harassment in the Kingdom.

Sheikh Saud Al-Shureem, one of the imams and preachers of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, put it into context by tweeting that the Jews were the first ones who committed sexual harassment.

He is referring to a story that is not from the Koran or the Hadith but rather in the biography of Muhammad.

Wikipedia explains:

In March 624, Muslims led by Muhammad defeated the Meccans of the Banu Quraish tribe in the Battle of Badr. According to Ibn Hisham, a dispute broke out between the Muslims and the Banu Qaynuqa (the allies of the Khazraj tribe) soon afterwards when a Muslim woman visited a jeweler's shop in the Qaynuqa marketplace, she was pestered to uncover her face. The goldsmith, a Jew, pinned her clothing such, that upon getting up, she was stripped naked. A Muslim man coming upon the resulting commotion killed the shopkeeper in retaliation. The Jews in turn killed the Muslim man. This escalated to a chain of revenge killings, and enmity grew between Muslims and the Banu Qaynuqa.

...and eventually to the ethnic cleansing of the Jewish tribe from their homes by Mohammed.

Apparently, his point is that if Muslims aren't repulsed by the idea of sexual harassment of women, knowing that it is a Jewish invention should do the trick.

(h/t Ibn Boutros)

07/27 Links Pt2: ICC prosecutor won’t reopen flotilla probe; UK's Irreconcilable Policy on Islam

From Ian:

ICC prosecutor says she won’t reopen probe into flotilla deaths

The International Criminal Court will not open another investigation into the deaths of 10 Turkish citizens aboard a Gaza blockade-busting ship in 2010, despite a pretrial chamber ordering the prosecutor earlier this month to reconsider her decision to close her initial probe into the case.
In response, the Israeli Foreign Ministry released a statement, lauding ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda’s decision to appeal the order by a three-judge panel to reconsider her closing of the investigation.
“The ICC never had any business to deal with this event to begin with,” an Israeli official said. “Israel acted out of self-defense according to international law.”
The Israeli raid on the Gaza-bound vessel in May 2010 led to a bloody clash with activists aboard the ship, leaving 10 Turks dead and a number of Israeli soldiers injured.
The incident was initially probed by an Israeli committee headed by jurist Jacob Turkel with the participation of international observers, the Israeli official noted.
There was no official word from the ICC, but a document shared on Twitter and signed by Bensouda, calling for the probe to be closed, seemed to confirm the report. (h/t Yenta Press)

ICC Urges Prosecutor to Stop Appeal on Reopening Flotilla Case

The International Criminal Court called on Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda on Monday to go back on her decision to appeal the reexamination of the IDF's conduct during the raid a Gaza-bound flotilla in 2010.
In response to Bensouda's decision to appeal, Israeli officials said that "to start with, there was no place for the court to deal with this issue. Israel acted in self-defense and in accordance with international law."

Douglas Murray: Britain's Irreconcilable Policy on Islam

Two very interesting things happened in Britain over the last two weeks. What makes them more interesting is that they are wholly contradictory.
Abroad, Britain's foreign secretary, Philip Hammond, put his nation's name to the P5+1 agreement with Iran, lifting sanctions against the Islamic Republic, unfreezing its assets, lifting arms controls on the regime and much, much more, all in exchange for having potential oversight -- with permission requested weeks in advance of any inspection -- of the country's nuclear sites. Britain's signature on this deal appears to have been an accepted and acceptable outcome with no significant opposition from any senior political figure of either main political party, and very little objection in the national press.
A few days later, Britain's Prime Minister, David Cameron, gave his best speech to date on the threat of Islamic extremism at home and abroad. In that speech, the Prime Minister defined the challenge that Islamic extremism poses to Britain's way of life and cohesion as a society. He outlined the problem better than perhaps any other Western leader to date:
"What we are fighting, in Islamist extremism, is an ideology. It is an extreme doctrine. And like any extreme doctrine, it is subversive. At its furthest end, it seeks to destroy nation-states to invent its own barbaric realm. And it often backs violence to achieve this aim... mostly violence against fellow Muslims -- who don't subscribe to its sick worldview. But you don't have to support violence to subscribe to certain intolerant ideas which create a climate in which extremists can flourish. Ideas which are hostile to basic liberal values such as democracy, freedom and sexual equality. Ideas which actively promote discrimination, sectarianism and segregation."
So how does the Prime Minster's domestic speech on extremism fit with the foreign policy goals currently being pursued by the British government? The most straightforward answer is: They don't. Take that lowest rung of what David Cameron rightly sees as an ideological ladder. That is, the ideas which do not pertain to the destruction of whole nation-states but nonetheless demonstrate an extremist mind-set.

New Arab Claim on Susiya: History Begins When Arabs Settled

Even if the claim were valid, it does not mean that Arabs can build without permits, but it would allow them to use the land for agriculture.
Haaretz noted that previous deeds from a century ago are problematic because they do not clearly define land boundaries.
The claim of a document from 1881 is strange because the Jabri family was one of the heads of the city of Hebron, 12 miles away by road. Susiya was not exactly Boardwalk on the Hebron land board; it was not even on the board at all.
The southern Hebron Hills is a barren mountain desert area. A family in Hebron would have no apparent reason to buy or lease land in Susiya.
But if the deed really is true, it exposes the Palestinian Authority as claiming that history begins only when Arabs settle land.
If Arabs wants to start digging into history before the re-establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, then all recorded documents have to be honored.
For example, using 1881 as a starting point, there are dozens of recorded land purchases by Jews of land in such places as Gaza, Gush Etzion and the Silwan Valley in “eastern Jerusalem.”

US caved on requirements for Iranian possible military dimensions reporting

From the WSJ:

An Obama administration assessment of the Iran nuclear deal provided to Congress has led a number of lawmakers to conclude the U.S. and world powers will never get to the bottom of the country's alleged efforts to build an atomic weapon, and that Tehran won't be pressed to fully explain its past.

In a report to Capitol Hill last week, the administration said it was unlikely Iran would admit to having pursued a covert nuclear weapons program, and that such an acknowledgment wasn't critical to verifying Iranian commitments in the future.
Details of the report, which haven't been previously disclosed, indicate the deal reached this month could go ahead even if United Nations inspectors never ascertain conclusively whether Iran pursued a nuclear weapons program—something Tehran has repeatedly denied.

....The documents included classified and unclassified sections on the verification process that will be used to ensure Iran is abiding by the agreement. The package also includes a section on Iran's future nuclear research and development plans.

On Iran's alleged past weapons work, the Obama administration said it concluded: "An Iranian admission of its past nuclear weapons program is unlikely and is not necessary for purposes of verifying commitments going forward," said a copy of the assessment viewed by The Wall Street Journal.

"U.S. confidence on this front is based in large part on what we believe we already know about Iran's past activities," the report said. "The United States has shared with the IAEA the relevant information, and crafted specific measures that will enable inspectors to establish confidence that previously reported Iranian [weaponization] activities are not ongoing."

Omri Ceren of The Israel Project released a quick list (via email) of previous administration promises to ensure that PMDs were fully investigated in any agreement:

-- Wendy Sherman, Undersecretary of State, Dec 12 2013 -- There are three places in the agreement that speak to the possible military dimensions of Iran's program. In the first paragraph, it talks about having the comprehensive agreement address all remaining concerns. That is a reference to their possible military dimensions. It talks about the need to address past and present practices, which is the IAEA terminology for possible military dimensions, including Parchin... So we have had very direct conversations with Iran about all of these. They understand completely the meaning of the words in this agreement, and we intend to support the IAEA in its efforts to deal with possible military dimensions, including Parchin.(http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-113shrg87828/html/CHRG-113shrg87828.htm)

-- Wendy Sherman, Undersecretary of State, Feb 4 2014 -- "We raised possible military dimensions.... in the Joint Plan of Action, we have required that Iran come clean on its past actions as part of any comprehensive agreement in three very critical ways... First... we expect, indeed, Parchin to be resolved.... Secondly, the plan says before the final step, there would be additional steps in the -- in between the initial measure and the final step, including addressing the U.N. Security Council resolutions, which require... dealing with issues of past (ph) concerns."(http://www.shearman.com/~/media/Files/Services/Iran-Sanctions/US-Resources/Joint-Plan-of-Action/4-Feb-2014--Transcript-of-Senate-Foreign-Relations-Committee-Hearing-on-the-Iran-Nuclear-Negotiations-Panel-1.pdf)

-- John Kerry, Secretary of State, April 8 2015 -- "They have to do it. It will be done. If there’s going to be a deal; it will be done."(http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/iran-must-disclose-past-nuclear-military-activities-final-deal-says-kerry/)

-- Marie Harf, State spokesperson, April 23, 2015 -- QUESTION: But you can’t say with definitive clarity at this point that, for example, inspectors will be allowed into Parchin? -- MS. HARF: Well, we would find it, I think, very difficult to imagine a JCPA that did not require such access at Parchin. (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2015/04/240324.htm)

-- John Kirby, State spokesperson, June 17 2015 -- And again, I'd tell you that that interpretation of his comments is incorrect. Let me, if I could, read to you what he actually said to you in your question: 'On something like possible military dimensions' – this is from yesterday – 'the JPOA refers to that and says that it’s got to be addressed in the context of the final product. And that remains true; it has to be. And we have to resolve our questions about it with specificity. Access is very, very critical. It’s always been critical from day one; it remains critical. And we defined that at Lausanne, and those are sorts of fundamental outlines, if you will.' Within that context, there is leeway to define further certain things, but not this one.(http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2015/06/243942.htm)

The western-left today thinks that the Jews are oppressive to Muslims in the Middle East. They believe that Jewish Israelis are brutalizing and ethnically-cleansing the innocent "indigenous" population.

In previous decades the so-called "Palestinian narrative" has taken hold of the western imagination. Within that narrative, vicious and militaristic Jews marched out of Europe and violently displaced the native population in the early-middle of the twentieth-century. Jews pushed "Palestinians" out of their native land where, as "Palestinians," they had been living for many thousand of years. Mahmoud Abbas even laughably claimed that the "Palestinians" have a 9,000 year history on that land. He said, "Oh, Netanyahu, you are incidental in history; we are the people of history. We are the owners of history."

If the "Palestinians" are the "owners of history" it must be a secret history that they keep entirely to themselves. I have never heard of a people with a secret history before! The "Palestinians" have lived on that land for 9,000 years and, yet, somehow, history seems to have passed them by. It is a profound mystery. There are no records of a "Palestinian" state on that land. There are no records of the great "Palestinian" artists or leaders or scientists that thrived in the Land of Palestine for all those thousands of years. Yet the foundation of Arab and western-left hostility toward the Jewish Israelis is the idea that they violently displaced the native population. Jews, we are to understand, are illegally "Occupying" - with the Big O - Judea, a land that belongs to Palestinian-Arabs, not Jews.

There is always a charge against the Jews among westerners in every generation.

Every generation they tell us just why Jewish kids deserve a good beating. In previous generations, of course, we were either guilty of killing Jesus or of giving the world Jesus and are, therefore, responsible for the failings of Christianity. We were sometimes thought of as the heinous agents of greedy capitalism or the heinous agents of totalitarian socialism. And, needless to say, in the early part of the twentieth-century, we were the wrong "race." We were considered inherently, essentially, bad people.

In this generation, however, the charge is that we are mean to Arabs.

There are around six million Jews in Israel and something between three hundred and four hundred million Arab-Muslims surrounding them in the Middle East. For reasons having to do with theocratic bigotry, Muslims in that part of the world traditionally despise the Jews and often teach their children to throw stones at us. Throwing stones at Jews in Israel is not a manifestation, as is often claimed, of righteous push-back against the "Occupation," but is a time-honored tradition within Arab culture, grounded in the rankest form of bigotry and persecution of the despised "other."

It was Caliph Omar Abd al-Azziz, who reigned between 717 and 720 CE, who codified the rules of dhimmi status, sometimes referred to as the Pact of Omar or Covenant of Omar, but which I like to think of as Jim Crow for Jews. The first and foremost rule was the paying of jizya tax and acceptance of the conditions of ahl al-dhimma. In Martin Gilbert's In Ishmael's House, we read:

There could be no building of new synagogues or churches. Dhimmis could not ride horses, but only donkeys; they could not use saddles, but only ride sidesaddle. Further, they could not employ a Muslim. Jews and Christians alike had to wear special hats, cloaks and shoes to mark them out from Muslims. They were even obliged to carry signs on their clothing or to wear types and colors of clothing that would indicate they were not Muslims, while at the same time avoid clothing that had any association with Mohammed and Islam. Most notably, green clothing was forbidden...

Other aspects of dhimmi existence were that Jews - and also Christians - were not to be given Muslim names, were not to prevent anyone from converting to Islam, and were not to be allowed tombs that were higher than those of Muslims. Men could enter public bathhouses only when they wore a special sign around their neck distinguishing them from Muslims, while women could not bathe with Muslim women and had to use separate bathhouses instead. Sexual relations with a Muslim woman were forbidden, as was cursing the Prophet in public - an offense punishable by death.

Under dhimmi rules as they evolved, neither Jews nor Christians could carry guns, build new places of worship or repair old ones without permission,or build any place of worship that was higher than a mosque. A non-Muslim could not inherit anything from a Muslim. A non-Muslim man could not marry a Muslim woman, although a Muslim man could marry a Christian or a Jewish woman.

Martin Gilbert, In Ishmael's House: A History of Jews in Muslim Lands (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 2010) 32 - 33.

The unacknowledged foundation of the conflict is Arab-Muslim Koranically-based bigotry against Jews... we children of orangutans and swine. Were it not for Islam, there would be no conflict. Or, another way of putting it is that if Israel was not a Jewish state, but yet another Muslim state, there would be no conflict based on a supposed need for a "two-state solution." In fact, not only would there be no conflict, there would not even be any "Palestinians." The reason for this is because the designation "Palestinian" only came into being so that Arab-Muslims could make their hysterical claims upon historically Jewish land. The great majority of local Arabs did not consider themselves "Palestinian" until the latter third of the twentieth-century. And some even remain skeptical concerning it to this day.

"Palestinian" does not represent an ethnicity any more than "Saharan" represents an ethnicity or "Californian" represents an ethnicity. If we must use outdated terms, then anyone who lives in Israel - a part of the former British Mandate of Palestine - must be considered a "Palestinian." There are Muslim Palestinians and Jewish Palestinians and Christian Palestinians and Rosicrucian Palestinians and Rastafarian Palestinians and Atheist Palestinians. To claim that only Muslims and Christians can be "Palestinian" would be something akin to claiming that only Rastafarians and Rosicrucians can be "Californians." As someone who lives in the San Francisco Bay Area, it sometimes seems as if California is, in fact, run by Rastafarians and Rosicrucians, but no one would ever suggest that only some people can be Californian.

Furthermore, it must be understood that "Palestinian," as an ethnic designation, was artificially constructed or contrived. It did not emerge, as other ethnicities have, organically, but was primarily a creation of Yassir Arafat and the Soviets. Even Rashid Khalidi in Palestinian Identity: The Construction of Modern National Consciousness only finds the first quiet notions of the idea emerging around the turn into the twentieth-century, but everyone who understands the history of the conflict knows that most "Palestinians" only came to see themselves as "Palestinian" in the 1960s with the creation of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO).

Many would suggest that, contrived or not, "Palestinian" as an ethnic or national designation now exists and that as a matter of general human decency, if not liberal ideology, it must be acknowledged. And, of course, the world has acknowledged the "Palestinians" as a distinct people with a history and with rights. What I fail to understand, however, is just why it is that Jewish people are under any moral or ethical obligation to acknowledge a people who only recently came into existence as a people for the purpose of undermining, and eventually destroying, Jewish national autonomy?

Jews may acknowledge the "Palestinians" or we may not. Jews may negotiate with "Palestinians" or we may not. It may even be in Israel's best interest to both acknowledge and negotiate with "Palestinians" or, maybe not. But just why in this world are we under any sort of ethical obligation to acknowledge a people who only emerged as a people for the sole purpose of destroying Jewish freedom on our own land?

I suppose that I am trying to slam the barn door only after the horses have escaped, but I am one of those who has come to the conclusion that the very biggest mistake that Israel ever made was in acknowledging a distinct "Palestinian" people and, therefore, agreeing to negotiate with their alleged representatives, the PLO terrorist organization. Were it up to me Israel would only agree to negotiations with legitimate state actors. Israel may legitimately negotiate with Iran, but it certainly should not negotiate with the Islamic State (IS), which Barack Obama deceptively refers to as ISIL in order to veil the Islamic nature of the group. And just as Israel should not negotiate with the Islamic State, so it should not negotiate with either Hamas or the Palestinian Authority.

Neither represent legitimate state actors and both are entirely riddled with genocidal anti-Semitism.

As we are seeing with the Iranian bomb situation, Israel can no longer afford to allow itself to be pushed around. People respect those who respect themselves and letting the murderers of Israelis out of Israeli prisons, as a concession to Mahmoud Abbas and Barack Obama, does not suggest self-respect, but its opposite. The only way for Jews to have self-respect, however, is to see through the "Palestinian narrative" for the tissue of lies that it represents. Otherwise both Israeli Jews and diaspora Jews must, by necessity, see themselves as complicit in a terrible crime against the innocent indigenous population.

I recommend against it and history backs us up.

Michael Lumish is a blogger at the Israel Thrives blog as well as a regular contributor/blogger at Times of Israel and Jews Down Under.

07/27 Links Pt1: Sharansky: Jews stood up to the US government 40 yrs ago, and should again on Iran

From Ian:

Natan Sharansky: Jews stood up to the U.S. government 40 years ago, and should again on Iran

As difficult as this situation is, however, it is not unprecedented. Jews have been here before, 40 years ago, at a historic juncture no less frightening or fateful than today’s.
In the early 1970s, Republican President Richard Nixon inaugurated his policy of detente with the Soviet Union with an extremely ambitious aim: to end the Cold War by normalizing relations between the two superpowers.
Among the obstacles Nixon faced was the USSR’s refusal to allow on-site inspections of its weapons facilities. Moscow did not want to give up its main advantage, a closed political system that prevented information and people from escaping and prevented prying eyes from looking in.
Yet the Soviet Union, with its very rigid and atrophied economy, badly needed cooperation with the free world, which Nixon was prepared to offer. The problem was that he was not prepared to demand nearly enough from Moscow in return. And so as Nixon moved to grant the Soviet Union most-favored-nation status, and with it the same trade benefits as U.S. allies, Democratic Sen. Henry Jackson of Washington proposed what became a historic amendment, conditioning the removal of sanctions on the Soviet Union’s allowing free emigration for its citizens.
By that time, tens of thousands of Soviet Jews had asked permission to leave for Israel. Jackson’s amendment sought not only to help these people but also and more fundamentally to change the character of detente, linking improved economic relations to behavioral change by the USSR. Without the free movement of people, the senator insisted, there should be no free movement of goods.

Watchdog Says Obama Administration ‘Inventing’ Iran Concessions Under Nuclear Deal

According to TIP, four points in the infographic leave out information from the deal. The first claims that Iran has agreed to use only light-water nuclear reactors indefinitely, aside from the existing heavy-water reactor in Arak. TIP said that this “brand new claim” actually “contradicts past statements by President Obama.”
In the President’s post-Vienna speech he noted, “For at least the next 15 years, Iran will not build any new heavy-water reactors,” and not indefinitely, the group said.
The second concession claimed by the State Department is that Iran agreed not to cooperate with other countries on developing uranium enrichment technologies for 15 years. TIP alleges that this is also a “brand new claim,” and “can’t be true because the JCPOA obligates the Russians to cooperate with Iran on nuclear technology at Iran’s underground enrichment bunker at Fordow.”
The third concession listed in the infographic is that Iran has agreed to let the IAEA monitor the production and stockpiling of all heavy water in Iran. TIP points out that this is not a new concession, and was included under the Lausanne framework agreement, which said, “Iran will not accumulate heavy water in excess of the needs of the modified Arak reactor, and will sell any remaining heavy water on the international market for 15 years.” The JCPOA merely repeats this obligation, according to TIP.
The fourth claim was that Iran had agreed not to develop proficiency in uranium or plutonium metallurgy for at least 15 years, which would prevent it from producing the necessary components for a nuclear weapon. TIP claims that “the Iranians have had that proficiency since at least… 2009.”
One of the State Department-listed concessions was that Iran committed not to “engage in certain activities that could be used to design and develop a nuclear weapon.” The Israel Project acknowledged that this clause was included in the JCPOA, but, the group said, it is “100% unenforceable.” TIP quoted former IAEA official Olli Heinonen as saying that there’s “not really even an inspection procedure for that, I think it’s zero. It’s not even one.”
The State Department fact sheet also included two Iranian concessions that TIP said were “widely expected, and were aimed at fixing glaring and well-known loopholes left in the Lausanne text.”

Then and Now, Leftists Bowed Before Iranian Anti-Semites

Andrew Young, the ambassador to the United Nations under the Carter Administration, said that Khomeini was "a saint, a Social Democrat saint" and compared his revolution in the name of Allah to the American movement for civil rights. The Ambassador to Tehran, William Sullivan, compared the imam to Gandhi. The consultant of Jimmy Carter, Bill James, wrote that Ayatollah had to be admired "as a man of integrity."
Richard Falk, jurist from Princeton and future UN envoy in the Middle East, led the American mission in the suburb of Paris and hailed Khomeini as "a new model of popular revolution based, in large part, on nonviolent tactics". The Iranian expert Richard Cottam in the Washington Post called Khomeini "moderate, centrist", a hermit who was not interested in power. who would, once he defeated the Shah, retire in the holy city of Qom.
The exact opposite is, of course, what happened.
As Houchang Nahavan, former minister of the Shah and author of "Iran, the Clash of Ambitions" said: "Many leftist movements of Europe sent their delegations to the international conference held in Tehran in favor of the operation of the hostages of 4 November 1979." From France, the gay poet Jean Genet, unaware of what the mullahs did to homosexuals, expressed great sympathy for Khomeini because he had dared to oppose the West.
The journalist André Fontaine, director of the Monde, compared Khomeini to John Paul II in an article entitled "The Return of the divine" while the philosopher Jacques Madaule, re-defining the role of Khomeini, said that "his movement will open the doors to the future of humanity", defining Khomeinism as a "clamor from the depths of the times" who refuted "slavery."
Michel Foucault, in the famous articles in the Corriere della Sera and the Nouvel Observateur, was able to commend the impressive achievement of Khomeini as "the first of the Grand insurrection against global systems, the most modern form of revolt". The same Jean-Paul Sartre, guru of the Left, decided to go in person to Tehran to sustain publicly, with a great reinforcement of publicity, the wild-eyed imam.

Today's absurd Amnesty claim against Israel

Amnesty's Gaza Platform keeps revealing more and more bias. Here is their event #2668:

At approximately 08:00 [July 26, 2014], the body of Anwar ‘Abdul Qader Hassan Yousef, 2, was evacuated to the hospital. He died from a heart attack when Israeli forces shelled the vicinity of his family’s home in al-Nussairat refugee camp.

Now, there had been (according to the same tool) well over 50 airstrikes in the same area of the Nusseirat camp by that point. Yet PCHR, and Amnesty, knows for certain that one of the ones from that day caused the child to have a fatal heart attack.

Pediatric sudden cardiac arrest is a real problem that kills thousands of children a year, including - statistically speaking - between 5 and 30 in Gaza children every year.

But Amnesty has a rule that is sacrosanct: if Israel can be blamed, it must be blamed.

Amnesty, hell-bent on demonizing Israel, is planning to release another tool (together with the same haters at Forensics Architecture) this coming Wednesday that claims to document events in Rafah last year following the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier. (received via email)

Amnesty International, will host a press conference in Jerusalem to mark the launch of a new online report, ‘Black Friday’: Carnage in Rafah during the 2014 Israel/Gaza conflict, on Wednesday 29 July 2015. The online report, produced in cooperation with Forensic Architecture, will present cutting edge new analysis featuring photos, videos and satellite imagery to reconstruct the events in Rafah between 1 and 4 August 2014. The report sheds new light on violations of international law committed and the vast level of destruction and killing in the days following ‘Black Friday’ after the capture of Israeli soldier Lieutenant Hadar Goldin. Speakers at the press conference will include spokespeople from Amnesty International and Forensic Architecture.

Based on what we have seen so far from these two organizations, this "cutting edge new analysis " will be another slick interface on top of one-sided, unverifiable and outdated data.

Someone should really ask Amnesty how much money they are pouring into these anti-Israel campaigns, and how many actual lives could have been saved if they decided that, say, Africa is as much of a priority for their "human rights researchers."

The UN lies about international law. What a surprise.

A press release from the UN last Thursday says:

Today, the Humanitarian Coordinator for the occupied Palestinian territory, Robert Piper, visited Susiya, a Palestinian herding community in Area C in the southern West Bank, where homes and community structures are at imminent threat of demolition. He was accompanied by senior officials from the Governments of Norway, Switzerland and Italy.

...

“The destruction of private property in an occupied territory is prohibited under international humanitarian law. I call on the Israeli authorities to suspend all demolitions of Palestinian structures in Area C and to provide its residents with a planning and permit regime that allows them to meet their needs," he added.

The destruction of private property in occupied territory is permitted in cases of military necessity. But that's not the reason Israel is allowed (and even obligated) to demolish the buildings in Sussiya.

The reason is that under international law, even if you consider Area C to be occupied, the occupier must continue to use existing laws from before the occupation for zoning and the like. In this case, it means that Israel must enforce the zoning laws under Jordanian and British and even Ottoman regimes that were in effect in 1967.

And Israel is doing exactly that.

In fact, a major paper written to oppose Israel's policies in Area C by JLAC, quoted often by Israel-haters, doesn't dispute that Israel follows the original laws - it demands that Israel change those laws, something that would itself violate the Geneva Conventions!

Beyond that, the Oslo Accords gives Israel explicit permission to control land development in Area C.

It is absurd to assert, as the UN does, that anyone under occupation has the right to build anything without limitation and it is protected as "private property."

Moreover, the Israeli Supreme Court, which knows a thing or two about the law, ruled in favor of the demolitions. I have yet to see anyone find a problem in its legal reasoning.

So the UN is lying about international law.

In a normal world, this would be scandalous. But in the bizarre world where anything anti-Israel is OK and anything Israel does is defined as illegal before any legal analysis is done, this is par for the course.

By the way, Israel does allow numerous projects for Arabs in Area C that conform to the law. This booklet details dozens of such projects from 2012 alone.

The Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip was signed by Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization in 1995. The agreement divides Judea and Samaria into three sections: A, B and C.

Area A, which includes most of the large Palestinian population centers, is mostly under Palestinian Authority (PA) civil and security control.

Area B is mostly under PA civil control and Israeli security control.

Area C is mostly under Israeli security and civil control, although the PA has authority in civil matters not related to land.

The government of Israel, through the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT), promotes development and improved living standards for the Palestinian population in Area C. This population totals some 90,000 people, roughly 3 percent of the Palestinian population in Judea and Samaria.

Israel meets all of its obligations to the Palestinian population in Area C, as required by the Oslo Accords and derived from Israel's security control of the area and her authority over infrastructure, land, and planning.

Beyond the responsibilities designated in the agreements, Israel provides additional assistance to the Palestinians in Area C, in areas such as agriculture and health. Israel also supports projects in Area C that serve all populations in Judea and Samaria, such as waste disposal sites and waste water treatment plants.
...
The statutory process for construction projects in Area C is complex and lengthy, but it is necessary. Proper planning preserves the rights of individuals well as the public interest, especially in regards to the protection of the environment, the use of natural resources and the preservation of archaeological sites. In order for the Civil Administration to approve a project, the plans must undergo this statutory process and adhere to the time frames stipulated in the law.

Many construction projects in Area C are illegal and poorly planned. Such activity damages the environment and creates long-term problems that lower the standard of living for residents. Illegal construction projects that ignore master plans undermine the possibility for future expansions and create problems for electrical, sewage and water systems.

COGAT welcomes initiatives for projects in Area C, and works to ensure their success, but only as long as they adhere to the law. We encourage the international community to continue to work with us so that projects can be executed in a legal and efficient manner.

Furthermore, we call your attention to those projects that the Civil Administration has approved but have not yet been implemented because they do not have a sponsor (see Appendix B). Our shared goal is to continue to secure financing and to develop projects that benefit Palestinians living in Area C.

The Palestinian Legislative Council warned of new policies for UNRWA to reduce refugee services. The PLC considers is "a declaration of war on refugees."

The president of the Council said in a press statement issued on Sunday, "It was clear that the new orientation of UNRWA is serious and worrying".

He continued, "We fear the re-creation of the resettlement project, which the agency tried to implement it at the beginning of the fifties, which was rejected by the Palestinian people with all their might and they still insist on the resistance."

He called on the masses of the Palestinian people everywhere, particularly in the Palestinian refugee camps, to stand united in the face of this plot, to address what he called a "conspiracy."

If you read between the lines, this unnamed official (it could be Hamas' Aziz Duwaik or Fatah's Azzam al Ahmad) is saying that Palestinian Arabs have no right to attempt to become citizens of their host countries, since their leaders fear the idea that they may be resettled elsewhere and therefore cannot be used as excuses to vilify Israel for coming generations.

And he admits that UNRWA's original purpose included resettling refugees, as it says in the part of UNGC resolution 194 that those who insist on a "right to return" never quote: "Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees."

In short: Palestinian Arab leaders continue to actively work to keep millions of people stateless. And they are afraid that UNRWA night revert to its original mandate to reduce the number of refugees, not perpetuate them.

In a sane world, UNRWA's financial woes should should make people realize that its remit cannot go on forever as long as it insists on its increasingly unsustainable and false definition of "refugees" as being perpetually granted to future generations until Arabs declare they are happy. It can solve its financial problems by:

Taking those who are Jordanian citizens off its rolls
Taking those who live in the land they are supposedly "refugees" from off their rolls
Using parts of its budget to ease the transition of "refugees" into becomingequal citizens of those entities
Holding a transparent referendum for Palestinians in other countries asking them if they would like to become citizens of their host countries
Working with Arab countries to allow Palestinians who want to become naturalized citizens, the same as any other Arab can.

But since no one at UNRWA actually wants to solve the problem they were meant to solve, no media outlets bother to document how badly Palestinian Arab "refugees" are being discriminated against in Arab countries and the world wants to place the blame for these stateless people's plight on Israel rather than the corrupt Arab leadership, no one will do anything until UNRWA collapses and things get much, much worse.

Even dressing up is considered "resistance"

Ma'an reports:

Hundreds of Palestinians wearing traditional Palestinian dress attended marches across the West Bank and Gaza on Saturday to celebrate Traditional Palestinian Dress and Heritage Day.

In Ramallah, men, women and children marched from the municipality building in the northern town of al-Bireh to the al-Bireh cultural center, waving Palestinian flags and signs while calling for the protection of the Palestinian cultural heritage.

Lana Hijazi, who coordinated the celebrations, said that the idea of a day celebrating Palestinian traditional dress came following a discussion she had with a friend from Gaza, Mai al-Li, on the importance of the Palestinian traditional dress, heritage and civilization.

"The goal of the initiative is to remind Palestinians around the world of our heritage to maintain."

Nothing wrong with this. While I have looked hard for specific examples of "Palestinian" culture and mostly came up short, Some towns had their own unique crafts (soap in Nablus, glass in Hebron, olive wood carving in Bethlehem) but these were local, not national. But if Arabs in Judea and Samaria want to dress up in costumes and claim that they are celebrating "Palestinian culture," then it doesn't bother me.

But their justification for doing it shows that this isn't cultural, but political:

Palestinians have in the past spoken out against "cultural appropriation" by the Jewish Israeli population, citing in particular the Israeli claim to traditional Palestinian foods such as humus and falafel, as well as traditional clothing, including an Israeli redesign of the Palestinian Kuffeyeh that incorporated a light blue Star of David.

"Jews are referring our civilization and heritage to them, and we have to maintain and keep our identity,"Hijazi said.

She said that the initiative was in response to fears that the Palestinian heritage is under "attack" from Israel, that is is being stolen and falsified.

"Wearing the Palestinian traditional dress is resisting the occupation," Hijaz said. "We resist and keep our cultural heritage as part of the beauty of our Palestine."

Celebrations also took place in Gaza, where people marched to the UNESCO headquarters there, demanding UNESCO and the Palestinian Authority officially recognize July 25 as Palestinian Traditional Dress and Heritage Day.

Omar Abu Shawish, from the Gaza campaign, called on the PA to support the Palestinian heritage and urged UNESCO to respond to Israeli action against it.

There is no small bit of irony in this article. The people behind this are saying explicitly that the major reason they want a "Palestinian Traditional Dress and Heritage Day" to be recognized by UNESCO is as an act of "resistance" against Israel, not as a positive step towards strengthening their own supposed heritage.

I've mentioned before that Jews, secure in our own cultural history, are not offended that Arabs love to eat matzoh and no one would mind if they started eating Bamba or gefilte fish or dancing horas. Arabs, on the other hand, freak out when Israelis - about half of whose ancestors lived in Arab lands - embrace and often enhance Middle Eastern foods or dress.

The entire reason for "Palestinian Traditional Dress and Heritage Day" is because, deep down, Palestinian Arabs know that they have little culture to call their own that is unique from surrounding areas. The entire reason they want UNESCO to recognize a fake culture is to claim that Jews have stolen it from them.

People secure in their culture have no reason to fear others. I see no "Levant Heritage Day" or "North African Heritage Day" even though both those areas have far richer cultural influence than "Palestine" ever had.

Their framing this as "resistance" proves the exact opposite of the purported point of "Palestinian Traditional Dress and Heritage Day" - it proves that their claim to have a vibrant historic culture is bogus and nearly the entire Palestinian Arab cultural heritage is dedicated not to further one culture but to try to eliminate another.
.